Commercial fishermen asking for favorable rules isn’t new, but a few things make today’s situation different — and perhaps more likely to see some action.

First, Gov. Patrick has taken a pretty high profile, asking the federal government for an emergency change in the regulations in order to avoid putting fishermen out of business in droves. He’s keeping the heat on U.S. Commerce Secretary Locke in a way we probably wouldn’t have gotten from most other governors. Patrick told The Standard-Times Tuesday that he has spoken with Locke by telephone in recent days to, in the words of reporter Steve Urbon in today’s story, “vent his frustration with waiting for Locke to decide what to do.”

At issue, of course, are catch limits under the new system that went into effect May 1. Statistics from New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang’s office show 253 boats from a fleet of 500 are no longer fishing. Of the remaining 247 boats, just 55 of them generate 61 percent of the revenue.

Patrick urged Locke in a November letter to make an emergency change to raise catch limits while staying within the allowable range supported by government research. I must emphasize: Science supports the acceptability of higher catch limits for certain species. This is not about dismissing the science for the sake of industry.

Senators John Kerry and Scott Brown, along with Congressmen Barney Frank, Bill Delahunt and John Tierney, endorsed Patrick’s argument in a letter of their own, and The Standard-Times called on Locke in a Dec. 9 editorial to make the change.

The governor’s involvement may make a difference. Sure, it benefits him politically, but if you’re a fisherman about to lose your livelihood, Patrick’s political motivations are very much beside the point.

Other factors point to the potential for favorable action from Locke as well.

While the broad congressional support isn’t new — fishermen consider Frank a particularly strong ally – it seems the delegation’s focus on a narrow request carries more weight.

Plus, the weak economy has drawn attention to the plight of struggling small and mid-size businesses. And Patrick and the others have backed up their argument with specific data, citing a public report, “Economic and Scientific Conditions in the Massachusetts Multispecies Groundfishery,” which scientists at the Massachusetts Department of Marine Fisheries and the School for Marine Science and Technology at UMass Dartmouth oversaw. The report argues for raising catch limits by 30 percent for most groundfish species, more for others.

Also — and this is significant — Locke has already acknowleged he has the authority to make the change. He could have tried to rest on excuses about process or jurisdiction, but so far, Locke has chosen not to take the easy way out. For that I applaud him. He has a difficult decision to make. May he make the right one.

Freetowners who follow town government know far better than I what Larry Ashley has meant to the town for more than a decade. They could write this post well, I have no doubt! But let me offer some observations from an editor’s (and former reporter’s) vantage point on the longtime selectman who plans to depart after this spring’s election.

In the earlier part of the decade I covered Lakeville for The Standard-Times, and with it, the Freetown-Lakeville schools. I also covered the environmental racism lawsuit filed against Freetown by the Rev. Curtis Dias and residents of Braley Road. I was never the Freetown reporter per se, but I had numerous opportunities to interact with Ashley.

Rarely did he refuse to comment, though he wouldn’t speak for the story I wrote about the Braley Road settlement. In that case, he said he was legally bound not to speak.

Most often, though, he was a voice of reason and a thought leader for the town. As the longest-serving of today’s board members, Ashley saw the town through some difficult times.

The accusation that over many years, Freetown had steered industrial development to Braley Road and thereby engaged in environmental racism troubled him deeply.

“We did not zone an area based on ethnicity,” he told The Standard-Times in 2003. “We put it before the townsfolk based on industry that was already there. I wasn’t raised like that, and I think it’s without merit, quite frankly.”

I’m not judging the merit of the case, but Ashley was in a tough spot. The town ended up settling for nearly $300,000. It probably saved money in the end by avoiding attorney’s fees and a potential jury award.

When Freetown and Lakeville experienced a spate of mutual mistrust over budgeting for the regional schools in 2003, Ashley spoke pretty candidly but refrained from melodrama, as was his way.

“Do I think that there’s some mistrust? Yeah, I do, but we’re going to continue to work together,” he said.

Jump forward to 2010. Freetown and Lakeville repaired their relationship enough to hold successful votes to regionalize their elementary schools, making a fully regionalized district that will spend its money more efficiently for the benefit of the students. During the process, Ashley favored progress so long as it treated Freetown fairly.

“I’m absolutely fine with regionalization as long as it has equity on both sides of the stream,” he said. “If we don’t have a school committee with equal votes (from each town), I will push to not do it. You have to have equal seats at the table or it’s hard to get anything worked out.”

In the end, Freetown got its equal number of seats, with members elected by the voters of both towns.

Ashley counts among his successes — with the help of others, he is quick to note — the building of schools, parks, ball fields and playgrounds, the rebuilding of bridges and roads, wiring Town Hall for the Internet, and setting up an award-winning town website.

Though the recession has made governing harder, I think it’s safe to say Ashley is leaving Freetown a better place than when he was elected 12 years ago.

It’s also a better place than when Ashley first got involved in civic affairs some years prior. By January of 1999, he was named The Standard-Times’ Freetown Man of the Year for mediating the regional schools’ expansion crisis as chair of the “Committee of 22.” Ashley had also volunteered on the Conservation Commission, Soil Conservation Board, Zoning and Planning and Bylaw Review Committees, and with a group fundraising for 4th of July fireworks.

Ashley certainly deserves a break, but don’t count him out completely: He says he might run for the School Committee “to see the regionalization through.”

Run or not, Ashley cares about what’s best for Freetown, and Freetown has reaped the rewards of his dedication for many years. He deserves the town’s thanks.

Sales of vitamin D rose 82 percent in a single year, and I was one of the buyers.

I was, and still am, part of a trend in which Americans are consuming higher levels of vitamin D on the recommendation of their doctors. So when the latest government-sponsored report on vitamin D and calcium supplements came out in November, I was paying attention.

If you saw the headlines, it could have been confusing. Many said most Americans get enough calcium in their diets and from the sun, so they don’t need supplements (a blow to the industry, by the way).

But if you saw the Wall Street Journal, the headline read, ”Triple that vitamin D intake, panel prescribes.”

Which is correct? Both.

That’s because the panel from the independent Institute of Medicine, in a study commissioned by the United States and Canada, raised recommendations from the previous number set in 1997. But the idea behind the report was to review more recent research, especially in light of the escalating amounts of calcium Americans are consuming. Citing data from the Nutrition Business Journal, Reuters reported Nov. 29 that sales of vitamin D supplements grew by 82 percent from 2008 to 2009.

Studies in the last few years have suggested that low vitamin D contributes to various health risks, including heart disease.

Vitamin D testing has surged, and some laboratories have begun reporting vitamin D deficiency at blood levels that would make 80 percent of the population deficient, one member of the panel told The New York Times.

I was one of those people labeled “deficient” by a blood test — a surprise to me and my family. I remember remarking that I had never heard of anyone being deficient in vitamin D.

Yet here I am, taking two calcium-plus-Ds a day, plus whatever D is in my multivitamin.

But the Institute of Medicine report, while raising levels from 1997, suggests that many Americans like me may not need as much as we’re taking.

“The IOM finds that the evidence supports a role for vitamin D and calcium in bone health but not in other health conditions,” the report says. “Further, emerging evidence indicates that too much of these nutrients may be harmful, challenging the concept that ‘more is better.’”

For most people, 800 milligrams of calcium a day meets their needs, the report says. Women over 50 need more, as do adolescents. Young children need less.

Vitamin D, as the report points out, is “somewhat more complicated.” Levels in the body can vary based on sun exposure and vitamin D in the diet, including in fortified foods. Assuming minimal sun exposure, the report says 400 international units of D meets most people’s daily requirement, but older people may need more. A chart of those numbers is available here.

So am I cutting my vitamin D? Not yet.

I’m going to talk about it with my doctor. Here’s one reason: You’ll notice the chart also includes an “upper level intake,” the level above which supplementation could be unsafe. For vitamin D for a woman my age, that number is 4,000 international units — 10 times the estimated average requirement.

I called Sen. John Kerry’s office today looking for more specific comments on his fellow Bay State senator’s unemployment proposal. Kerry said in a written statement earlier this week that killing the extension, as many Republicans have sought to do, is “inexcusable,” but he hadn’t said much about what Brown has billed as a compromise.

Brown wants to extend benefits, but pay for them with agencies’ unspent funds, “some of which have been sitting around for years,” he said Wednesday in a video released to the media. Some have been sitting around, but not all. So the net effect would be to reduce spending in other areas.

In past recessions, Congress has extended benefits using emergency funds, which amount to deficit spending. Brown joined Republicans in blocking a Democrat-backed extension using the customary method.

Democrats balked.

“It’s inexcusable to kill unemployment benefits for people who have been working their whole lives until the economy hit the skids,” Kerry said in his written statement.

Even though Democrats hold the majority, Republicans have enough votes to block the bill.

“When it looked like things couldn’t get worse,” Kerry said, “filibusters, delay, and gamesmanship cut off the lifeline that helps families put food on the table or see a doctor, all while the Republican caucus says we better find time to extend tax cuts for multi-millionaires.”

Meanwhile, many laid-off workers living on unemployment will lose their benefits shortly, just as the holidays arrive. What a terrible thing to face.

So I wondered, aside from pride and politics, what reasons Democrats had not to go along with Brown’s idea. According to the Boston Globe, Kerry said Republicans don’t worry about the deficit when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. But that doesn’t directly address Brown’s idea.

Kerry’s staff e-mailed me a new statement. In it, he said, “There’s a reason why Congress always treated unemployment benefits as emergency spending, because when you have this kind of unemployment and this many people struggling to find work, it’s an emergency.”

The Globe reported that Brown said on the Senate floor Tuesday night, “Are we going to do it from the bank account, or are we going to put it on the credit card?’’

Good point, isn’t it? Well, sort of.

In our homes we’d all like to pay for as many things from the bank account as possible. But the analogy only goes so far when you apply it to the federal government, a complex $3 trillion entity presently funding a war, a post-war operation in Iraq, and worldwide counterterrorism activities.

Sometimes it helps to have a credit card, if only because it’s awkward to bring a case of greenbacks to a car dealer.

And Kerry makes a good point about those tax breaks for the rich. If those breaks help the economy, it’s no stretch to say the money Brown wants to use might be helping the economy in other ways, such as by funding bridge repair and high-speed rail, giving grants to schools to hire teachers, or supporting scientific research.

Extending unemployment benefits isn’t a black-and-white issue. It needs more ink, more comments, more attention.

There may be a lot the public doesn’t know about the Friends of Buttonwood Park.

Casual observers who’ve seen the headlines in recent years might think the Friends are merely a group of park neighbors who want to control what goes on in the park: They don’t like the Whaling City Festival, they pressured the city to take down a ”Welcome to Buttonwood Park” sign erected by an after-school program, and they oppose the expansion of the zoo.

But the Friends aren’t just nosy neighbors. They’re a bona fide nonprofit focused on upholding the ideals of famed American landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted and the original plan for the park. Olmsted’s firm created a master plan, though by then he was elderly and did not necessarily do the work himself, according to the Friends.

The Friends group was formed in 1986 at the recommendation of state grantmakers, who were awarding money to preserve Olmsted landscapes. Twelve parks each received $1.2 million, Friends board member Jean Bennett said. The state wanted Buttonwood to have a support organization that would advocate for the park and aid its future maintenance and improvement. Today, the Friends plant trees, run a tree education program for children, and work with youth to clear invasive plants, among other projects.

So when the Friends speak out against the zoo’s proposal to expand by four acres, carving those acres out of the park, the Friends’ opposition is more than a NIMBY thing. Let’s give them that. They’re not just protecting their collective front yards; they’re trying to preserve urban natural space for the public.

That’s doesn’t necessarily mean the 97-acre park can’t afford to give four to the zoo.

The editorial board of The Standard-Times hasn’t taken a position on the issue yet. We met today with three representatives of the Friends, and we have invited zoo officials to meet with us as well. We’re in the process of working out a time with the zoo director, Dr. William Langbauer.

One thing that seems clear is that over the years, the all-volunteer Friends haven’t done a very good job communicating their identity and mission to the public. Nor has the zoo, it seems, done enough to communicate with the public about its plans for expansion. The zoo’s master plan is theoretically online, if your computer can handle a 16 MB file and has a new enough version of Acrobat, but many people won’t be able to view it. Recent public meetings on the expansion were held Nov. 1 and 4, awfully close to the election – and after the draft master plan was complete.

Fortunately, the proposal will get a more public airing from now on. The city’s park board, the mayor and city council — at a minimum — will have to give their approval before anything goes forward.

Now that the issue is heating up, residents from throughout the city, not just the Buttonwood area, should pay close attention to what’s happening. The Friends have a least one thing right: Buttonwood Park belongs to us all, not just the people who frequent the zoo. But the zoo, and its widely loved elephants for whom the expansion is largely designed, belong to the city as well.

Language is a beautiful thing — for what human beings use it to say, and for what it says about human beings.

What language says about certain Republicans is they’re willing to risk looking ungrammatical if they can use it to jab Democrats.

I’m talking about the now-fashionable term “Democrat Party,” with the noun “Democrat” used as an adjective to imply that the Democratic Party is something less than democratic. The adjective-as-noun also appears in expressions like “Democrat candidate” and “Democrat primary,” but “Democrat Party” is the ultimate. It goes right to the heart of the enemy. It breaks more rules. It makes the point about cornering the market on democracy but also bastardizes the official name of the organization.

While the term seems to have been re-popularized by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush and more recently by the anti-Obama crowd, it’s far from new. Like with so many things, history reveals we’re repeating ourselves.

The year was 1956. Unlike today, we had a popular Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, running for re-election. Unlike today, the economy was, despite some small ups and downs, flush with the prosperity of the post-World War II era. I’m not sure why, at that moment, Republicans seized on “Democrat Party,” but they did, at the national convention. Republicans had used the term in years past, but at the convention that year, at least three speakers used “Democrat” where “Democratic” would have been the customary word.

If you check out this link online, you can see the first page of a 1957 article in the academic journal American Speech. Citing articles in The New York Times, the article says three convention speakers uttered “Democrat” as an adjective, using the terms ”Democrat Party,” “Democrat presidents,” “Democrat voters” and “Democrat administrations.” Whew. That’s a lot of Democrats.

In the ensuing weeks, other Republicans picked up the habit. They used the clipped pejorative in speech, in campaign literature and advertisements.

Noting the uptick, the American Speech article opened this way:

“One of the two great American political parties has been known for well over a century by the name of Democratic Party, but recently some of the leaders of the other party and quite a few of their followers have made a point of clipping this appellation to Democrat Party. Whether they have meant to imply that that party was no longer democratic, or whether they banked on the harsher sound pattern of the new name; whether they wanted to strengthen the impression that they were speaking for a new Republican party by using a new name for the opposition, or whether they had other reasons, the fact remains that the keynoter and some other highly influential speakers at the last G.O.P. convention, as well as innumerable other Republican party workers, used the shorter adjective.”

So we’ve established the term isn’t new. This time around, it may be winning wider usage, including in the media.

The assertively liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters for America has catalogued some examples. In 2006, the group found numerous uses during the spring and summer of “Democrat Party” and other noun-as-adjective constructions — by journalists, not partisan guests — on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” (by a correspondent, not Cooper) and CNN’s “American Morning.” They also found isolated incidents in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and Associated Press.

In the posting titled “GOP strategists christen ‘Democrat [sic] Party’ — and the media comply,” the organization cites a New Yorker article that credits House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican pollster Frank Luntz for repopularizing the term, saying Luntz actually organized focus groups to test how people would receive misuse of the word.

Apparently a lot of Americans didn’t really care.

Some have even picked up the language themselves. In letters to the editor I’ve received in recent months, I’ve seen “Democrat Party,” “Democrat candidate” and “Democrat activist.” For some it’s a simple issue of fairness: Democrats don’t have a patent on democracy, after all. Others veritably spit the word, like an epithet.

My feeling is this: It has a purpose, as most manipulations of language do. It’s not a mistake. So in speeches, television appearances, campaign stops and so forth, I say go for it — if you’re a politician or commentator. If you’re a journalist doing objective reporting, not so much. If you’re a Republican writing an essay for publication, I say good grammar rules the day.

But then, Republics are free to do as they wish. It’s a free democrat country.

I have news about Allie Lucio, the young baseball player I blogged about in June.

Allie’s mom, Lori Lucio, says Allie will play both baseball and softball next year. It sounds like a compromise, considering that a few months ago, Allie said, “I don’t like softball. I don’t want to have to change to throwing underhand. But I guess I have to.”

Allie’s mom expressed frustration in an e-mail to me, asking, “Who came up with this law?”

So I decided to check it out.

First, some background. In June, The Standard-Times printed a story about Allie pitching a no-hitter in the Bronco Division of the South End youth league. It was a great accomplishment, but the story also highlighted the problem girls face when they grow up in the recreational baseball leagues, only to get pressured to leave the sport. When they reach high school, state athletic regulations prevent them from playing on a school baseball team unless the school doesn’t offer softball.

And perhaps more significant is this: Since top softball players can win college scholarships, parents of baseball-loving daughters are less likely to speak out against the rules.

Now, back to Ms. Lucio’s question. The rule against girls playing baseball comes from the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, whose members are schools and their athletic administrators, including athletic directors and principals. The latest version of the handbook includes the following rule under the section, “Boys and Girls on the Same Team”: ”Softball and baseball are competitively equal sports. Therefore, girls shall participate in softball and boys in baseball provided each sport is offered at that school. Length of game is one basic difference (i.e. time required to play baseball and softball differ).”

The quote comes from Page 40. You can peruse the document at your leisure here.

When I read it, I wondered, “What does ‘competitively equal’ mean?” The games are similar, but that’s an odd term. Sounds a little like “separate but equal,” honestly.

I wanted to learn more about the MIAA’s rationale. I called Barry Haley, president of the MIAA board of directors and athletic director at Concord-Carlisle High School.

First, let me say that Haley supports girls’ sports. His wife, he said, was one of the first girls to play Little League in the 1970s. But he also supports the “competitively equal” rule.

Softball “fits their physical capabilities much more effectively than baseball, with the 90-foot diamond and things like that, not that there aren’t female athletes who can play on that, but it seems historically to have worked,” he said. “It’s a rule that has worked in the best interest of both sports for a number of years.”

Haley said sometimes girls don’t appreciate what they have. Since the advent of Title IX, girls have been playing softball very competitively at younger ages, like 6, 7 and 8, he said.

For more girls to play baseball, the state would need one of two things: co-ed teams or girls-only baseball. Haley made an interesting point about how the co-ed route could be problematic. He said the MIAA had to change the rules for volleyball in recent years because of a situation that arose with schools that offered volleyball for girls but not boys. Since they didn’t have volleyball for boys, boys had to be allowed on the girls’ team. The result was that boys played the net and dominated against all-girl teams. Since the net is six inches lower in girls’ volleyball (7 feet), the boys didn’t have to jump as high as if they’d played on boys’ teams. The MIAA made a new rule that boys can’t play the front row on girls’ teams, Haley said.

Co-ed teams aren’t going to become the norm anytime soon. But if Allie can be competitive with boys in baseball, should she be allowed to play high school varsity? Short of paying tuition to a high school with no softball team (if she can find one), the only way to accomplish that would be to propose an MIAA rule change. Anyone can propose a change, Haley said — coaches, athletic directors, MIAA staff, even parents.

But that would take years. At the end of this year, the MIAA will adopt already-proposed rule changes. Then, new proposals submitted by the end of 2012 will be considered for the next rule-making cycle. By the time they go into effect, Allie will already be in high school.

For now, baseball and softball in Massachusetts remain different but “equal.” I’m guessing Allie doesn’t view them as equal. What can she do? What is the pro-girl solution here? All co-ed teams on which girls would rarely make varsity? Girls-only baseball, which might not get much support from softball-playing girls? I’m just not sure.

A fast-paced period of endorsement decisions is underway here at The Standard-Times. Ever wonder how it works? I’ll try to give you a taste.

Contrary to a few online complainers out there, our political endorsements are far from preordained. I won’t deny that we’ve endorsed many Democrats over the years, but in a state where Democrats have dominated the political scene for so long, we sometimes see underqualified Republican candidates, though less so at the governor’s level.

This year, that’s changed.

Owing to disappointment with President Obama, the deep recession, and the success of GOP Sen. Scott Brown, Massachusetts seems to have more, and more qualified, candidates running on the Republican ticket. The anti-incumbent sentiment has also fueled some high-profile unenrolled candidacies, notably that of State Treasurer Tim Cahill in his run for governor.

You could almost say this is the opposite of what’s happening in the Republican Party nationally. While the tea party movement is surging around the country and has supporters in Massachusetts, the strength of this latest crop of state GOP candidates is how mainstream many of them are, with traditional qualifications and the like.

A great example is Mary Connaughton, a certified public accountant running for state auditor. Congressman Barney Frank has his most formidable challenger in years in Sean Bielat, who holds two master’s degrees, one an Ivy League MBA and the other in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Locally, we have two well-known selectmen, Joseph Michaud of Dartmouth and Derek Maksy of Lakeville, running as Republicans for seats in the Legislature.

And those are just the ones who easily come to mind. Republicans clearly have some good shots this year.

But I digress. My point is, everyone gets a fair shake with The Standard-Times editorial board.

We’ve invited 41 candidates to meet with us between now and the end of October. Each person who accepts our invitation will meet with us individually, without his or her opponent, for about an hour. Underdogs get a full hearing that way.

The invitation list includes all the candidates in statewide races, as well as the races for 4th District U.S. House (the seat now held by Frank), Bristol County sheriff, and the eight contested state House and Senate races in our readership area. And yes, we’ve invited the unenrolled and Green-Rainbow Party candidates. There has been some controversy surrounding the question of whether Green-Rainbow gubernatorial candidate Jill Stein would be allowed to participate in debates, but here at the S-T, Stein is welcome along with all the others.

Roughly half the candidates have accepted invitations so far. Those least likely to have accepted are the statewide candidates, who must be trying to strategize about where it will profit them to campaign and when. Tim Cahill’s campaign was noticeably enthusiastic; he was one of the first to accept. We’ll meet with Cahill Oct. 5. We’ve also seen a lot of enthusiasm from candidates seeking open seats, namely for auditor and treasurer.

After the meetings, the board will talk informally about our impressions of the candidates. Only after meeting with the full slate of candidates in a given race (or all the candidates who agree to attend) will we make a decision.

As many of our readers know, The Standard-Times editorial board includes three members of the public dubbed “community advisory members” who participate in our meetings on a volunteer basis for a six-month period. We sometimes hear questions from readers about the role and influence of those members. The most important thing to know is that anyone can apply for those positions; they are not a movers-and-shakers-only deal. We aim to select people whose political views will balance one another and even challenge the dominant thinking on the board, not reinforce it.

When it comes to elections, the community advisory members participate in all of our candidate meetings and have the opportunity to ask questions. They are included in our subsequent discussions, and we value those contributions. It’s important for readers to know, however, that the advisory members do not have any formal voting power that could force the board’s hand. The in-house members make the final decision.

We plan to make a great many of those decisions in the coming weeks. I hope you’ll stay tuned. It’s truly a privilege to have the opportunity to meet in person so many of the people who want to serve in elected office. We get an up-close look, and we’ll share what we learn with our readers.

The effort to organize a chapter of the Guardian Angels in New Bedford has fizzled out for a second time, following a somewhat longer-lived try in the early 1980s.

Last summer, with all the media coverage, letters to the editor, and interest expressed in the community, it seemed the paramilitary-style Angels struck a chord. Their promise of trained anti-crime crusaders patrolling New Bedford’s most crime-infested streets in their red berets and red satin jackets, standing at the ready to alert police, looked very appealing to the public. City residents even volunteered to participate, but when patrols were scheduled, not enough volunteers were able attend.

It’s too bad. While some residents and police were a little leery of their methods, no one can dispute that the effort to organize a local chapter, led by Henry Bousquet, Kenneth Resendes, and Jerry Pinto, inspired people to be more vocal about their opposition to crime. The prospect of a citizen movement to turn ordinary crime-watch efforts into a more assertive brand of activism gave many in the city renewed hope.

“If executed well,” The Standard-Times said in an editorial on Jul 29, 2009, “ the movement could eventually change the attitude in some quarters that crime is inevitable, and that young people have no choice but to get involved in gangs and drug dealing.

“To the extent that New Bedford’s Guardian Angels may come to represent a positive engagement of residents in a lawful anti-crime movement, we applaud them.”

It may not have helped that shortly after the group got off the ground last year, Guardian Angels founder and CEO Curtis Sliwa appointed the commander of the Brockton chapter to run the young New Bedford chapter because Sliwa was not happy with its progress. Sliwa surely meant well, but it couldn’t have been easy for a group of enthusiastic local people to be assigned an outsider to fix their mistakes. That kind of thing might be necessary in business, but when you’re dealing with volunteers, it’s risky.

Nationally, the Guardian Angels are no beginners. Sliwa organized the first street patrols in 1978. Since then, the group has branched into educational programs used in the New York and New Jersey schools. It has won the endorsement of two New York City mayors, Oprah Winfrey, and other luminaries.

Locally, though, the leadership arrangement got off to a slow start. Bousquet told S-T reporter Brian Fraga there was little communication between the Brockton commander and the New Bedford volunteers. Nor, again, did enough people actually commit to specific patrol dates.

Maybe they were intimidated. After all, police go to the academy and carry guns when they put themselves in harm’s way on city streets. Guardian Angels take their lives in their hands with less training, no guns, and no law enforcement authority. (Then again, chapters exist in far more intimidating cities, like New York, Chicago and Detroit.)

Police Chief Ronald E. Teachman did not approve of their street patrols, as he reminded The Standard-Times this week, even as he gave credit to their raising awareness.

“Although I did not agree with their methods,” Teachman said, “the Guardian Angels were right to encourage people to be more concerned about the welfare of others.”

They certainly were. They reminded the people of New Bedford that residents can do more to discourage crime by reporting what they see to police. Too often, criminals go free because suspicious activity goes unreported or witnesses never come forward or refuse to testify.

Fortunately, neighborhood associations and the umbrella group Neighborhoods United, as Teachman pointed out, still exist and can serve as an outlet for residents who are concerned about crime and safety. The three local Angels organizers have pledged to stay active in their neighborhood groups, which is good to hear. Though they charged their fellow residents with apathy, hopefully some of the interest in being vigilant against crime will remain. If people can’t patrol the streets, they can at least join the neighborhood watch or report suspicious activity to police.

The spirit of the Angels is that ordinary people can take back their neighborhoods from crime. New Bedford still needs that spirit.

Some wars have no victor. Tuesday night, when President Barack Obama formally declared the combat mission in Iraq concluded, he praised American troops but did not claim victory. He said instead that “in an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” If nothing else, he displayed an intellectual honesty far removed from George W. Bush’s preposterous “mission accomplished” declaration in 2003, just two months after the invasion.

Honesty about Iraq honors the hard work and sacrifice of our soldiers, including the SouthCoast residents who gave their lives: Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Joseph Camara of New Bedford, Army Spc. Peter G. Enos of Dartmouth, Marine Lance Cpl. Michael L. Ford of New Bedford, and Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Tyler J. Trahan of Freetown.

They served their country and all its people, regardless of politics.

Unfortunately, Iraq has still not formed a government after elections that took place six months ago. News reports indicate that some Iraqis feel they have traded basic safety and security for the freedom of a world without Saddam Hussein. Such lawless freedom is hardly freedom at all.

The president was right to press Iraqi leaders, calling on them to “move forward with a sense of urgency” to solidify a government that will fairly represent the people. If Iraq and the United States can gain anything from a war started on faulty intelligence, it is an Iraq that emerges more fair and democratic for future generations.

Terrorist attacks continue to plague the desert nation, and sadly, the U.S.-led occupation has served as a recruiting tool for terrorists, making America less secure.

Now that the United States can direct more of its military resources toward Afghanistan, perhaps we will make more progress against the brand of terrorism that gave birth to the heinous attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But the task will be no easier, and will very likely be harder, than the one we faced in Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan is already the longest in our nation’s history. It continues to consume lives and dollars, even as Obama pledges to the American people that fixing the economy is his “central responsibility” and “our most urgent task.” His administration needs to provide more clarity in the coming months on both of those missions: the mission against terrorism and the mission to solve the employment crisis at home.

Although they can never be fully separated, nation-building in Iraq has proved a profound distraction from the fight against terrorism.

The Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq took the doctrine of preemptive strikes too far. America must react to real threats, not behave like a hostile empire and lose its allies around the world. As the president said, our strength comes from our diplomacy and reputation as well as from military might. “One of the lessons of our effort in Iraq,” he said, “is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power — including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example — to secure our interests and stand by our allies.”

Seven years after Bush’s false victory, it’s good to have a president who puts diplomacy — and a measure of honesty — into action.